Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:57:17 -0400 From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jgowdy@home.com>, "Rik van Riel" <riel@conectiva.com.br> Cc: "Alfred Perlstein" <bright@wintelcom.net>, "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org>, <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: SMP in 2.4 (fwd) Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010419154734.040c4ce0@mail.etinc.com> In-Reply-To: <007f01c0c8f7$0d2e7680$015778d8@sherline.net> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418190439.03633920@mail.etinc.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010419114632.03cacdd0@mail.etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:34 PM 04/19/2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > > Your point is moot, as you already have SMP support. The question is > > whether squeezing a few extra cycles out (SMPng) is worth making the OS > > significantly more complex, particularly when more computing power is > > always on the way. > >Much of the code is being simplified and cleaned up. And it's not a "few >extra cycles". I do admit im in a vacuum here, as I havent seen any 5.0 code. Im assuming it will be as ugly and problemattic as linux (which was unfortunately how this thread got started, but some linux moron crossposting)...and thats not fair as there are much better programmers in FBSD's camp than linux's. If its done relatively transparently, then its a big win. If it makes all of the drivers a new learning experience, then its not. db To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.0.20010419154734.040c4ce0>